The Official ES All Things Redskins Name Change Thread (Reboot Edition---Read New OP)

[Springfield]

Here's the way I see it...

People who feel offended will always feel offended regardless of others peoples attempts to show them why they shouldn't be offended. Vice versa, those who are not offended won't accept arguments as to why they should be offended.

The only thing that will change the name of the Redskins is money. Right now the Redskins are the 3rd or 4th most valuable team in the league. The team has a lot of sway when it comes to league policy because a lot of that revenue being shared throughout the league originated from the Washington Redskins. If you want to change the name you'll have to convince millions of fans to stop buying apparel, thousands to stop going to games and hundreds of companies to stop paying to be associated with the Washington Redskins.

In short, you've got a better chance of changing the team name of the Miami Dolphins than you do of the Washington Redskins.

[chipwhich]

The only thing that will change the name of the Redskins is money. Right now the Redskins are the 3rd or 4th most valuable team in the league. The team has a lot of sway when it comes to league policy because a lot of that revenue being shared throughout the league originated from the Washington Redskins. If you want to change the name you'll have to convince millions of fans to stop buying apparel, thousands to stop going to games and hundreds of companies to stop paying to be associated with the Washington Redskins.

 

Not sure I agree with you here.

I believe a name change would make Dan Snyder a ton of money.

 

Jersey sales, etc would go through the roof.  Some think otherwise.

[Springfield]

Not sure I agree with you here.

I believe a name change would make Dan Snyder a ton of money.

Jersey sales, etc would go through the roof. Some think otherwise.

However I think that you do agree that money is the only thing that would get the name changed, or am I incorrect?

I don't necessarily agree that a name change would bring in any more money than is already made by the team. At least not a discernible amount. I'd assume that jersey sales are just fine as they are right now. Sure, he would make a little more money but I think percentage wise it wouldn't be worth it.

[RFKFedEx]

Sure, he would make a little more money but I think percentage wise it wouldn't be worth it.

If Nike were to drop some sick new B&G imagery, our under 30 crowd would eat it up immediately. There's less of an emotional attachment with those who didn't live through the title years. Young people matter mo$t.

[Kosher Ham]

My Mother is 100% NA, and is in her 60's.

 

She has never been called a Redskin...nor have I in my forty plus years. Nor my siblings.

 

The word is the team these days. It never really seemed to racist to begin with.

Personally, I find African- American, Asian American, and Black, etc. Absurd.

 

Stop labeling people.

 

I don't care where you are from, or how you got here, or where you live for that matter. We are all people.

[Springfield]

If Nike were to drop some sick new B&G imagery, our under 30 crowd would eat it up immediately. There's less of an emotional attachment with those who didn't live through the title years. Young people matter mo$t.

Yeah, but I bet they'd eat up "retro" redskins jerseys more than they'd eat up "slick new" Washington Warriors jerseys.

Redskins jerseys would be worth more, and thus more highly desirable than a new team's jerseys.

[chipwhich]

However I think that you do agree that money is the only thing that would get the name changed, or am I incorrect?

 

Correct.

 

Just saying.  Over a 5 year period, new jerseys, helmets, players, name, etc would bring in a fortune for Danny.

[elkabong82]

Elk if you want to pretend that this issue is all on the shoulders of a single writer at the Washington Post, I can't stop you.  I can however point out that it is obviously inaccurate.  It's not even limited to a single writer at the post, and it certainly isn't limited to the post in terms of local media personalities bothered by the name.  You know that.  Going further the Post wasn't behind the original lawsuit and they aren't the ones putting up radio ads now.  This issue predates Wise being with the Post and it started before Dan Snyder.  

 

Also one of the main arguments FOR changing the name has been increased revenue from new merchandise sales.  I know you think Redskins Nation will rise up and boycott the new products but I don't see that as likely, especially if latest evolution of the Redskins are any good.  If they change the name after the season and then follow it up by having a great 2014 season, sales will not be a problem.  

 

Please quote me where I said the issue was all on the shoulders of a single Post writer. I think I've argued well reasoned arguments in here enough to merit being viewed as rational and not making such erroneous statements as you claim.NOWHERE in my previous Post did I even suggest it was all on the shoulders of a single writer, so I have no clue where you pulled that from.

 

Now, if a name change does happen, to think there won't be backlash against Wise (I assume you were talking about him), one of the loudest advocates, when there already is backlash against him, seems silly to me, if that is indeed what you are implying. I said the Post was operating with a grudge, as they have been, so even there I didn't limit it to one person. I've talked about various people in here on the name change side. Read those posts again please before you suggest again that I am blaming a singular person. I have already also brought up Harjo and the Superbowl in 1991, and the irony of her protesting us but not the Buffalo Bills. Before you respond again, try to get the facts straight about what I've been posting in here instead of operating off assumptions you derived from a single post of mine.

 

I see people boycotting the new merch. if a name change is forced. I don't imagine it will be everyone, but it won't be an insignificant number either, unless you think the fanbase is the type that will simply rollover.

 

Anyway, my whole speculative post, a tone you mistook for me declaring fact despite my usage of the words "might" and the capitalized "MAY," was merely an extension of painkiller's thoughts on the fan reactions, as I previously stated. I for one don't think fans will simply accept a name change if it is forced, I think there will be some reactions, but of course one can only speculate.

[Springfield]

Correct.

Just saying. Over a 5 year period, new jerseys, helmets, players, name, etc would bring in a fortune for Danny.

If bet the difference between current Redskins gear and future team gear would be less than 10%. Which is like the difference between making 90 million and 100 million. I doubt Snyder would sweat the extra 10 million.

My original point still stands. The only way the name changes is if the money significantly decreases because of it.

That goes for those embracing a name change in this very thread. You are only doing Snyder and the current team name a favor by posting in the Official Redskins website forum about the name.

Part of me wonders if the team actually sells more merchandise because there is a possibility of a name change. Kinda like, buy all the guns because Obama is going to take them soon type of effect.

[Destino]

Please quote me where I said the issue was all on the shoulders of a single Post writer. I think I've argued well reasoned arguments in here enough to merit being viewed as rational and not making such erroneous statements as you claim.NOWHERE in my previous Post did I even suggest it was all on the shoulders of a single writer, so I have no clue where you pulled that from.

Perhaps you are right. I admit that the following quote was somewhat confusing, because of your use of sarcasm, so please clear up what you meant when you wrote the following:

But sure, because those situations have been accepted means there won't be any negative reactions from fans here, there aren't any already either. Those situations all had one local writer with a grudge against the owner pushing change through his paper that also holds a grudge against the owner. Unlike those colleges which didn't have a direct, local entity to blame the Redskins would.

Who is the local entity the Redskins would blame? Who is the one local writer with a grudge against the owner?

I see people boycotting the new merch. if a name change is forced. I don't imagine it will be everyone, but it won't be an insignificant number either, unless you think the fanbase is the type that will simply rollover.

I don't think embracing change is something I'd characterize as "rolling over". I also think young people represent the biggest market for new sports merchandise, as opposed to the older collector stuff. That's where the Redskins make their money and that is who is least likely to join any sort of boycott, especially if the team does well. Everyone loves a winner.

I don't favor a name change but I don't see it as the worst possible result in all this ugliness. The worst possible result, IMO, is being FORCED to change the name. The Redskins have the unfortunate distinction of being the last holdout in racial integration in the NFL. The worst outcome is for that to be viewed as a piece of history repeating. This is already uncomfortable but it could be so much worse.

If this fight gets to the point where it seems like it can't be won, Dan Snyder would be wise to be proactive and not fight a try for a last stand.

[Destino]

If bet the difference between current Redskins gear and future team gear would be less than 10%. Which is like the difference between making 90 million and 100 million. I doubt Snyder would sweat the extra 10 million.

The idea is that if the team changes logo and names that most people that care to wear any of it would immediately have a reason to buy some. Instead of adding a new jersey or hat every now and then they'd feel like replacing the stuff they had. If the team did well the same season the team changed names you could be looking at a sales increase, in the short term, that is closer to 200% than 10%.

[Springfield]

The idea is that if the team changes logo and names that most people that care to wear any of it would immediately have a reason to buy some. Instead of adding a new jersey or hat every now and then they'd feel like replacing the stuff they had. If the team did well the same season the team changed names you could be looking at a sales increase, in the short term, that is closer to 200% than 10%.

It's all speculatory. I'd expect a bump, by how much? No one knows.

My main point is that the team won't be forced to change their name. Not with how much money they are bringing to the league as of now. Snyder was comfortable enough with how much money the team was making the he actually eliminated seats from the stadium. That far outweighs an impact that jersey sales would make in my opinion. As of right now, he is making more than enough money.

As long as the money is there then the name stays.

[elkabong82]

Perhaps you are right. I admit that the following quote was somewhat confusing, because of your use of sarcasm, so please clear up what you meant when you wrote the following:

Who is the local entity the Redskins would blame? Who is the one local writer with a grudge against the owner?

I don't think embracing change is something I'd characterize as "rolling over". I also think young people represent the biggest market for new sports merchandise, as opposed to the older collector stuff. That's where the Redskins make their money and that is who is least likely to join any sort of boycott, especially if the team does well. Everyone loves a winner.

I don't favor a name change but I don't see it as the worst possible result in all this ugliness. The worst possible result, IMO, is being FORCED to change the name. The Redskins have the unfortunate distinction of being the last holdout in racial integration in the NFL. The worst outcome is for that to be viewed as a piece of history repeating. This is already uncomfortable but it could be so much worse.

If this fight gets to the point where it seems like it can't be won, Dan Snyder would be wise to be proactive and not fight a try for a last stand.

 

Oh, ok I see how that sarcastic post could be misconstrued. I thought you were replying to the post before it which is why I wondered where you got that from. In that post though, what I meant was that there is a very vocal local person who could, and has, been seen as one of the faces of the name change advocacy. I didn't mean that Wise is the ONLY one pushing it, but I definitely see how it could have been interpreted that way. The local entity would be the Post, I speculated, because they have been the strongest media outlet pushing it forward and have caught a lot of the blame/grief from fans. Again I wasn't saying they are the only ones, just that they will likely provide a face for those wanting to assign blame, and in fact have already caught a lot of blame, the colleges didn't really have that.

 

I would characterize embracing change that is unwarranted as rolling over. Perhaps you're right about the younger ones still buying the merch. but at the same time we all have to hope that if a change happens that it is not only a good name, but also a good uni design. Some of the newest ones in the NFL don't make me feel like it is a guarantee to be good, if it happens. I agree about the name being forced and the dangers of some possibly linking that resistance with Marshall's. Still, it gets left with Snyder and I think so long as the fans support the name and most of the country still says don't change the name, per recent polls, then the name isn't in any real danger, despite the moanings of the advocates. As many articles as I see on this, most from the same outlets, the majority of comments always seem to be anti-name change.

 

As far as the name change people, it's one thing to say you are offended when a reporter is around, it's another thing to actually get out and do something about it. We saw in Green Bay the lack of dedication from the movement and just how small it really is. 

[SusqySkin]

Mr Dan Snyder did the only thing he could do in my opinion. Take the side of the protesters and he loses Redskins Nation if/when the name changes. Take the side of Redskins nation and if/when the name changes he looks attacked. I enjoy reading peoples views on this. Great thread.

 

Hail

[Glenn X]

TK, thanks for posting that exposé about Art Halbritter, the scumbag casino owner and counterfeit "chief" of the Oneida tribe who's being hyped by the media for his stance against the team's nickname.  Halbritter is doubly sickening: one, he gets away with behaving like a villain from a B-level action movie (e.g. the bad guy in 2004's Walking Tall), horribly mistreating his fellow Oneidas as the B.I.A. and other Federal authorities look the other way; two, he starts this trumped-up campaign against the Redskins, and the UnWise Mikes and Bob Leys of the media world believe what he has to say without vetting his claims or biography.

 

A prior poster said (my apologies for not remembering the screen name) that the best thing Snyder could do would be to find some Oneidas who particularly dispise Halbritter and pay for them to get an attorney and take back their tribe.  Now that's a lawsuit I could get behind.

[Commander PK]

Not sure I agree with you here.

I believe a name change would make Dan Snyder a ton of money.

 

Jersey sales, etc would go through the roof.  Some think otherwise.

 

this depends entirely on whether the new name and scheme sucks or not.  I have never bought anything to do with the Wizards.  If I didn't grow up an Orioles fan, I would certainly be a Nationals fan right now.  The patriotic theme and name are perfect for the Nations Capitol. 

[Commander PK]

I don't favor a name change but I don't see it as the worst possible result in all this ugliness. The worst possible result, IMO, is being FORCED to change the name. The Redskins have the unfortunate distinction of being the last holdout in racial integration in the NFL. The worst outcome is for that to be viewed as a piece of history repeating. This is already uncomfortable but it could be so much worse.

If this fight gets to the point where it seems like it can't be won, Dan Snyder would be wise to be proactive and not fight a try for a last stand.

 

Strictly from a public relations standpoint, I am forced to agree with you.  Personally, I think they are apples and oranges.  Actively working to keep people of a certain race off of your team is totally different, than holding true to a name that your organization has had for 81 years, and was taken in honor of the people it represents.  When at it's very worst the name is only, possibly, racially insensitive, which has hardly been proven.  Simply acknowledging that a persons skin is red (if that is even in fact what the word meant), is not inherently racist in and of itself without context. 

 

However, the media will be the media and will try to use both to paint a larger picture.

[grhqofb5]

My Mother is 100% NA, and is in her 60's.

 

She has never been called a Redskin...nor have I in my forty plus years. Nor my siblings.

 

The word is the team these days. It never really seemed to racist to begin with.

Personally, I find African- American, Asian American, and Black, etc. Absurd.

 

Stop labeling people.

 

I don't care where you are from, or how you got here, or where you live for that matter. We are all people.

People should take note of kosher ham's comments on this issue. If we are truly interested in the opinions of native Americans, although he's just one, this is important. How many other NAs are on this board? Maybe not the best place for objective views, but better than listening to wise et al tell us what to think.

[celticsalmon]

The "Redskins" are a brand- nothing about that name is racist.  However when the words are seperated and used to describe someone's ethnic appearance the term red skin is.  This story will not die until the team changes the name.  So instead of fighting it, I'm all for moving forward.

 

If RG3 really is the gridiron messiah-then we have begun a new era- with new traditions of winning.  Let's not forget the "winning tradition" was in the 20th C.  Time to create something new!  I will always HTTR- with or without the name.

 

PS the reddest skin is Shanny's

[Commander PK]

and just to add to my post #1641

 

I remember staring at the Native American logo on that helmet as a boy.

 

My impressions of that logo were always one of strength, pride, and courage.  The guy on that helmet always looked like somebody you did not want to piss off.  A proud warrior of a great people.   

 

I NEVER ONCE have looked at that logo and thought something derogatory about the people represented there in my life.  I don't know a single fan of this team that has.

[Jumbo]

Maybe Dan's been planning to change the name, and believes he will make tons of $$$ on re-branding, and is just putting up a good show, so when he does he can say he was forced.

 

 

 

(for our conspiracy guys)

[chipwhich]

this depends entirely on whether the new name and scheme sucks or not.  I have never bought anything to do with the Wizards.  If I didn't grow up an Orioles fan, I would certainly be a Nationals fan right now.  The patriotic theme and name are perfect for the Nations Capitol. 

 

Comparing the Wizards to the Redskins is laughable.

 

As far as the Nationals/Orioles, your heart is with the Orioles.  I grew up watching the Orioles but never bought any Orioles stuff and my heart wasn't with the Orioles.  I consider myself a Nats fan and own jerseys and other stuff.  Totally different argument.

 

In DC Redskins nation is bigger than probably all of the other sports combined in terms of fans.  New game gear would run off the shelves.

[Commander PK]

 

In DC Redskins nation is bigger than probably all of the other sports combined in terms of fans.  New game gear would run off the shelves.

 

Honestly, you are probably correct in this assumption.  The problem is that I have yet to see any tangible evidence that changing the name of the team is justified and a worthwhile endeavor.  In fact, the limited evidence I have seen suggests that the opposite is true.  There is definitely more tangible evidence that the name honors Natives instead of dishonoring them.

 

**The team's history, to include Native Americans designing the logo on the helmet at a time where the team had already been known as the "Redskins" for 40 years.

 

**The Annenberg Poll in 2004.

 

The other side has opinions, and many individuals who to be frank have questionable motivations.  Many of these people are not even Native American, and would probably admit if pressed that they have not even talked to a Native about the issue to get their opinion.  In addition, there is no evidence that the few "Natives" who are actively pursuing the name change speak for their people at large.

[Riggo#44]

This is so maddening--the more the half truths get reported the most full truths they become. So Rick Reilly "misquoted" his father-in-law, and a ****storm ensued. Well, now the pro-name-change side knows how it feels.

 

If this was any kind of fair forum, PFT would be roasting Ray Halbritter instead of Rick Reilly.

[chipwhich]

Honestly, you are probably correct in this assumption.

 

I am not for a name change, just saying Danny wouldn't lose money on the move.